My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL50094
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL50094
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:30:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 5:39:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981021
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/2/2003
Doc Name
Revised Maps Site Report and Corrective Actions
From
DMG
To
International Uranium (USA) Corp.
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
There have been several ongoing problems with the permit maps, marking of the boundaries, and defining the <br />extent of permitted activities which are subject to reclamation liability. Our past discussions regarding the <br />boundary locations, adequacy of maps, and possible disturbances outside of the perceived boundaries have always <br />included the point that these possible offsite excursions were due to the actions of the previous permitted <br />operator(s) of the site and only came to the Division's attention after IUC succeeded as the permittee in 1997. In <br />addition, the maps available to IUC at the time of the permit transfer did not contain adequate topographic or <br />location information to definitively tie down the exact boundary location. Finally, you stated that the claim <br />boundaries upon which the original boundaries were originally based no longer exist, and IUC has access to an <br />increased area in this vicinity. <br />In light of these facts, and given IUC's willingness to perform the necessary mapping and inventorying of the site <br />to bring the permit into compliance, [will propose this idea for accomplishing a boundary change to you. <br />Typically, when a boundary change is limited by a cap on the permitted acreage, it involves the formal release of <br />some permitted land, then formally adding other non-permitted land to the permit. Adding land normally requires <br />an amendment to a permit. As mentioned above, this permit is currently approved for to 20 acres, the actual <br />amount currently affected being well below that level. Unless you propose adding acreage in an amount to bring the <br />total above 20 acres, I do not feel that an amendment is necessary or appropriate. <br />Though the boundary change should not involve an amendment, it should be framed within a formal permit action. <br />Your proposal for boundary reconfiguration, which is intended to ensure that all existing permit-related <br />disturbances will be brought into the permit boundary, and bonded for reclamation, should take the form of a <br />proposal for a technical revision. The boundaries and onsite features will be fully described, the boundaries will be <br />marked on the ground, and we can move forward from this point knowing that the permit and its documentation is <br />current and in compliance. You are not proposing an expansion of the affected area acreage, and this office does <br />not feel justified in pursuing the correction of former operator's sins as an enforcement issue. (Board-ordered <br />compliance would likely require the same end result we aze working toward anyway.) Once the matter of including <br />all necessary azeas within the affected area acreage is settled, this office could accept your proposal of the modified <br />boundaries in the context of a technical revision. Technical revisions for Hazd Rock 1 L2 permits carry a fee of <br />$150. <br />The resolution of this is to submit a request for technical revision. All affected areas must be included in the <br />permit. Your submittal should include the technical revision fee, a brief description of the boundary and include <br />the final mining map. An important item that will be necessary to provide is a demonstration of the legal right to <br />enter the proposed affected area, for purposes of mining and reclamation. This right-of--entry is necessary because <br />of the "new" areas that were not documented before, especially those located in SW 1/4 Sec. 13, SEl/4 Sec. 14, and <br />NW 114 Sec. 24, T44N, R18W. If your submittal includes revised maps, it should include two sets of originals, one <br />set for the Denver office and one- set for the Durango office. If you would submit to me a brief letter requesting <br />these changes under a technical revision, which adequately describes all affected areas so the permit may be <br />brought into compliance, I would be ready to approve it. During the review and approval process, we can discuss <br />any questions about final reclamation, so that the bond estimate may be calculated. <br />Site Conditions <br />I look forward to receiving the ownership information for the electric supply features. Please provide this as it is <br />obtained from the utility, we will be able to get a more accurate bond figure. <br />Corrective Actions <br />Your packet included a summary of past problems, corrective actions, and pertinent correspondence. The only <br />outstanding issues are the maps and boundary marking. Upon approval of the above-mentioned technical revision, <br />the mining map will be finalized, a reclamation map may be generated and the location and placement of all <br />boundary markers will be possible. I will ensure that our records are appropriately updated as each problem is <br />corrected. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.